Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday September 15, 2009 @10:48AM
from the in-loco-loco-loco-parentis dept.

stavros-59 writes "Australia's internet censorship watchdog, ACMA, uses an internet classification system originally intended for children's PC filters. ACMA has now made what must be the most amazing recent decisions of the whole bizarre censorship debate. The Register today has a story about ACMA's decision to force Apple to withdraw their ITMS gift feature from Australia on the basis that MA+ (over 15 and maybe sex) rated movies could not be given to children using the gift cards. The films are also banned on the internet but not at local video/DVD stores as detailed in this Whirlpool Forum post. At the same time, the photographic work of Robert Mapplethorpe (not for the fainthearted) has been classified as PG (Parental Guidance) by the Classification Board — which is not part of ACMA, but an agency under the Attorney General's Department."

Don't be a dumbass. First, this is the Internet and there are unpleasant things here. Second, if your temperament or employer can't handle you looking at grownup stuff, then don't fucking click links labeled "not for the fainthearted". Take a little responsibility for yourself and quit blaming others when your common sense fails you.

Granted, but you don't expect to see goatse-like images linked directly from an article on Slashdot. You wouldn't expect to turn on 60 Minutes and see hard-core pornography, would you?

Second, if your temperament or employer can't handle you looking at grownup stuff, then don't fucking click links labeled "not for the fainthearted".

Generally speaking the employer doesn't care what you look at; they are more concerned about another prude employee seeing you look at it and filing some kind of harassment suit against them. Given all the bullshit lawsuits that go on in this country, I can't say I blame them. Also, "not for the fainthearted" is not a strong enough disclaimer; it doesn't do a good enough job describing what the imagery is. "NSFW" is tried and true.

When it said "not for the fainthearted" I thought it might be "dark and disturbing" as some would put it. My heart has no problem with nudity, but my employers sure as hell will. Luckily nobody was around when I scrolled to the photo of a man holding his dick. Although it's been tagged NSFW already, I didn't get to the tags when I opened the link...it would have been nice to put NSFW in brackets directly after the link.

The link was marked as not for the faint hearted. Would you have still complained if the image had been violent, or perhaps a tasteful photo of naked breasts? What exactly did you expect to see that's not for the faint-hearted, but is simultaneously sterile and inoffensive enough for the workplace? Perhaps your complaint has more to do with you personally disagreeing with the content of the work.

I, for one, say: It's the way things are? Says who? And why should I care? I have my own set of values. Sex is the reason we exist. Violence is a reason some don't. Both is natural. But it's perverse, to prefer the latter. Are you perverse, Mr. Boss?

Sure, this way is not for those with a weak reality and no spine. Luckily, not everyone is like that.(But I stopped to work for others two years ago, started to just do what I love, and attract

I defined/interpreted faint hearted as NSFW and didn't click the link. Common sense failed you otherwise. Thanks for letting me know it was goatse. Now I'll definitively, send the article to my Australian friends in the office. However, it will likely be filtered.

There are three images. One, a pinky inserted partway into a penis. Second, Saint Thomas inserting his finger into spear-wound in Jesus's chest. Three, a halfway-to-the-elbow anal fisting. That final photo was pretty much as "tame tasteful and artistic" as an explicit fisting photo can reasonably be.

By the way, there is a warning at the top of the page:*FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY*

nice one. How many people are going to wonder how goatse can possibly be 'artsy', and click the link to find out, I wonder. you've doomed thousands. I'm just glad i'm at work so I can't possibly click on it, and i'll forget all about it by the time I get home.

You're thinking of the PG-13 rating or the R rating. PG is the second lowest rating, and movies rated such are considered harmless by most. Also not that the rating system only actually applies to movies, they are set by a secret group of "parents" in the MPAA, but the structure is so well known it often gets applied to other things, like photographs and web sites and such.

In the US the ratings are as follows: G - General audiences, PG - Parental Guidance, PG-13 - parents strongly cautioned, no admittance

Apple does check the age, just not the way the aussie overlords want. They feel, "Damnit, Apple, 15 year olds should be able to watch V for Vendetta, so I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" So is it Apple's job to work out the rating system and age correlation for every country?

"Not for the fainthearted" doesn't quite cover that link as a warning. "(Warning: NSFW and Similar to Goatse)" would have prevented me from clicking and my retinas from being tainted with another tasteless image.

You don't seem to understand, Robert Mapplethorpe's work is not "similar to goatse" it is "high art". I haven't quite figured out how it is more "artistic" than goatse, although, I think it is because in addition to being sick and twisted it is specifically offensive to Christians. I'm not sure on the last, since I have never viewed any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work, but that appears to be the position taken by his champions the last time there was a controversy over tax dollars being used to fund a display

He's only one of the most famous photographers in history. Jesus, if you haven't seen that image before, maybe it's time to move out of mom's basement and get an apartment. Or at least go visit an art museum once in a while.

He shouldn't be, I've seen a lot of amature stuff that is frankly, quite a bit better than his work.

It's a sad state of society when what amounts to a fetish porno photographer is considered a top photographer.

Why is his crap artistic? Because he shot in black and white? Seriously, there is a lot of stuff like his out there, and in color. Most people wouldn't consider it "high art". Is it the B&W that makes it art? If so, artsy people are idiots.

Meh, just because it is well known doesn't mean it is any good. You're arguing against personal feelings in an industry that is 100% subjective. Shit is shit, that some people are tittilated by shit isn't really any surprise, but it doesn't mean it's worth much. People buy what they want though, so more power to him.

What is backwards is the fact that a rather benign picture of a pair of breasts will be banned, while a man shoving his fist up a woman's anus is a-ok.

He shouldn't be, I've seen a lot of amature stuff that is frankly, quite a bit better than his work.

"My kid could paint better than that!"

You're showing a complete and utter lack of what art is. Like most who haven't studied it, you likely say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." I had an instructor once who was fond of saying "I don't know what I like, but I know what art is".

I'm glad we degraded into offensive talk. I would very much doubt much correlation between living in mom's basement to not having seen this image before. I would expect a much higher correlation between heterosexual, of an age range when public funding for displaying his works was not in the media, and/or outside the art community and having not seen this image before. No art museum I've been to has displayed work such as this. Having said that my interests are in tech/science/engineering (thus being on

I just want to point out that human history is full of ignorant politicians trying to ban or limit new technology for whatever reason (fear of what they don't understand, protecting business interests, maintain the status quo). But technology has always won in the end.

One of my favorite examples is when the Church banned crossbows. How'd that work out for them?

My point is that we should get upset with them, but we shouldn't overreact. Their stupidity will eventually be overturned.

I don't know about Australia, but after the South Park movie, American cinemas (particularly the corp-owned multiplexes) started checking IDs for R-rated movies. Recently some retailers began following the ESRB ratings for games, but I have never seen a clerk at any store bat an eye over an R-rated (or Unrated) DVD sale to anyone regardless of age.

I always assumed it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to avoid regulation on the film/game industry, but that there was no legal mandate to follow the ratings recommendations. Does anyone know in the US if there is a legal requirement (anywhere?) and likewise in Australia are there restrictions on buying physical DVDs based on their ratings?

Generally, it is a "gentleman's agreement" in the US. Retailers and theaters will require ID, but that's not a legal requirement, it's just company policy. And, like you suggested, big box stores are usually pretty casual about it, and until recent video game stores were *really* casual about it-- but they've gotten some bad press since the last GTA and, strangely, Halo 2 (which isn't very violent, IMO), so that's changing quickly.

The MPAA and ESRB ratings systems are both run by industry groups, with minim

Well sure - tell mom that little timmy might not be old enough for the latest Silent Hill game and she'll get mad because you're slowing her down, then she'll come back the next day and get pissed that you sold it to her. You can't really win, so don't even try:)

Average life span is such a wonderfully misleading figure. The average life span of those who entered adulthood was much higher than a measly 40 years. Throwing a lot of zeroes in for high infant mortality brings down the total average rather quickly.

And for Juliet, she was already close to being an old maid at 14, most other girls her age were already married. Extended adolescence is a modern ideal.

And at 14 back then you had a full time job and helped with the rent and food for the household (and was still hungry). While today you get to leach of your parents for an extra 10 years, and blame everything wrong in your personalty on them.

At 13 (agreed, it's not 12), my dad and I went on a fishing trip and on the beach one night I found an old Hustler magazine laying amongst some rocks. My dad allowed me to peruse through it so long as I didn't bring it home since he knew my mom wouldn't agree. He also allowed me to use "soft swears" such as "hell", "damn", and even "shit". However, the basic deal was if I was allowed to do this, I had to behave responsibly, as one old enough see and do such things as well. I found that out the mi

Maplethorpe had an "interesting" career documenting the gay S&M culture of NYC, but as such he is a canonical 20th century photographer. Some of his pics can be very disturbing (ie genitalia mutilations) but he has also taken some fantastic classical nude images. But in a twist of reality he has also taken some of the most beautiful photos of flowers [mapplethorpe.org] that I have ever seen. Hopefully the flowers are not being censored.

One ironic thing about Maplethorpe is that as a teen he struggled to win his fathers approval because of Maplethorpes artistic leanings and his struggle with his obvious gay sexuality. In order to "prove" himself to his father, Maplethrpe joined the most hardcore ROTC unit at his college and the irony was in the hazing routine - pure homoerotic S&M. So he seemed to be doomed! It all makes for his biography to be an interesting read

Some of his pics can be very disturbing (ie genitalia mutilations) but he has also taken some fantastic classical nude images

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

I am not going to claim that all of Mapplethorpes work is art worthy as I don't know the full extent of his catalogue and you can like or dislike his work as you see fit. However in defense of Mapplethorpe he was documenting the world around him as it happened in a subculture that few people knew about at the time. So it is of historical significance in the very least.

Images like this are not meant to make you feel good. They are meant to challenge you and make you confront your own feelings and beliefs. Would you say the same thing about documentary photos showing the atrocities of war? Or poverty or starvation? These are all subjects that other canonical photographers have sought out and created famous images from - Have you seen the classical figure of the napalmed girl running down the road in Vietnam? Or even the Farm Bureau pics of depression era USA?

Nor is all "free expression" art. If your description of Mapplethorpe's motives are correct, he was acting more as a journalist or historian. But it's considers art because...why? Because his title is "artist?" Because it's hung in a gallery instead of a history book? Or because art collectors pay $$$$ for something that an editor would pay $?

I have no problem with people exercising their First Amendment rights to express themselves, even thing

Mapplethorpe is also long dead, and did his work in the 1970s and 1980s. Of course he's not "avant garde" anymore.

His photographs are also gorgeous in terms of composition and light regardless of their content, so one could view his work purely in terms of craft in a way that, say, Nan Goldin's photography (which touches on similar themes from the same time period) does not.

His work was also a lightning rod for moral panic about the limits of art and free speech in America, and for that reason alone is

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

Some of the art out there certainly does express the worst of humanity. This does not make it one bit less valid as art, though. There are many out there (myself included) who feel that to experience all that it is to be human you need to be aware of the good, the bad, and the ugly sectors of human society. Furthermore, you could not have missed the mark any further in stating that "obscene" work degrades the truth -- these things you consider to be obscene are part of the human experience and thus are in

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

So in your world, you would be OK with your government banning the practice of your wife and daughters getting their ears pierced?How bout the shaving public hair for sanitary reasons?

FYI, Victorian era prudishness didn't hold sway anywhere in the world prior to *GASP* the Victorian Era. For the vast majority of human history, sex has been public, and sexual "deviance" accepted wholeheartedly. The only possible exception is the followers of God, in their various forms, who didn't take kindly to any "deviance" from any "norm", including sexuality, so much so that they kill each other over minor differences in their books.

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

I take it you only know the Disney side of world heritage. You have never read the Bible (recommended: Judges 19 and Lamentations), you know nothing about the Aztec or the Greek creation myths (and by the way about most creation myths anyway, the norse or the slavic ones are no less violent), you've never seen a painting from Hieronymus Bosch, and you might never ever have read Grimm's fairy tales themselves ("Cat and Mouse in Partnership" anyone?). As a matter of fact: During most of the human civilisation

None of them starts with "Once upon a time", and only a single one, "The Peasant's Wise Daughter" ends at least in German with the german equivalent to "and they lived happily ever after" ("Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute").

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic,

Incorrect; you have obviously never studied art history, not even taken a single class. The ancient Greeks and Romans had art that would turn your stomach (if you had a weak one), and even religious art from the dark ages and later in churches showed brutally obscene images (in the giuse of what hell was like, of course).

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30

Yeah summary is confusing. iTunes won't let kids get R rated movies, but Aussies rate some R movies as "slightly less than R", so they feel kids should have access to them. 16 year olds, for example, should only be restricted from the reeely R and NC-17 movies, according to them.

I'm not going to teach my kids that breasts are obscene; I'm going to teach my kids that we don't (shouldn't) go around in public waving our genitals (and breasts) in people's faces, and by extension we don't (shouldn't) let other people do the same thing.

I don't think teaching our kids not to wave their naked genitals around public is the same as teaching them that genitals are "obscene".

Why don't people understand that there's a difference between "private" and "gross"?

Your car analogy is fatally flawed. I'm not teaching my kids that nobody should be driving. (I'm not teaching my kids that nobody should be having sex.) I'm teaching my kids that only licensed drivers should be driving. (I'm teaching my kids that sex is for married couples.)

I'm opposed to intentionally displaying that sort of thing where children can see it

So you think babies should be blindfolded when breastfeeding? Or should the breastfeeding be unintentional? Very confusing.

Go to a beach in the South of Europe, or in a touristy area of the Caribbean. A good number of the ladies bare their breasts where children can see them. Whole families go skinny-dipping together in the Nordic countries. Nobody cares, not the police, not even the kids...
As Oscar Wilde said: "If God wanted us to be naked, we'd be born that way."

Nobody was "traumatized" by it, except for a few fundamentalist Christians, who probably weren't even watching the Superbowl in the first place.

But more to the point, the press reports non-news as HIGHLY IMPORTANT NEWS all the fucking time. If you take the news media as any indication of the general inclination of Americans, then you're highly mis-informed.